Contrary to popular belief, contraception is not an intrinsic evil.

If the object is intrinsically good, it is always good because that is its nature.


however, there is more to morality than simply the object.


The other two fonts are CIRCUMSTANCE and INTENTION. If any ONE of the three is immoral, then the action is immoral.

Click to expand...

I believe we have all overlooked this fact; whether contraception, fornication, or adultery, the object is always sex... The circumstances and intent are what differ.

I'll try to get back on Sunday to post the good Fathers' responses. Sleep well, and God bless.

isshinwhat said:

"CCC 1755: A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together." Thus sex, while ordered to the good, is not morally good in and of itself because the end and circumstances are not taken into account, right?



I agree with your overall assessment, but CCC 1755 seems to say that Fornication is an intrinsically evil act, "There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil." In re-reading I do believe is stated my premise poorly... Wouldn't Murder and Adultery be intrinsically evil acts?

Click to expand...

isshinwhat . . this does not say that fornication is an intrinsically evil act.

It says it is a moral evil.


Something can be a moral evil if any one of the three fonts of morality are vioatled. . .

Again . . . Intent . . . . Object . . . Circumstance.


ONLY ONE HAS BE BE ENGAGED FOR THERE TO BE A MORALLY EVIL ACT

Again . . . fornication s a choice to use somthing intrinsically good in an evil way . . .that does not change its nature . . . the object, sex, does not suddenly become intrinsically evil.

THE INTENT IS EVIL.


Such a choice vioates the morality of the font of intent.


Please, understand what intrisically means and does not mean.


You are misusing and misunderstanding this very important and controlling word.

isshinwhat said:

I believe we have all overlooked this fact; whether contraception, fornication, or adultery, the object is always sex... The circumstances and intent are what differ.

I'll try to get back on Sunday to post the good Fathers' responses. Sleep well, and God bless.

Click to expand...

No isshinwhat


Sex is an intrinsically good object.


Contraception is an intrinsically evil object.


Contraception is not sex.

They are two different objects morally speaking.

isshinwhat said:

I was hoping for the statement itself, but regardless the Vatican was addressing contragestion, which the USCCB doc in question specifically states is evil and must be avoided when using "emergency contraception..." Can that be assured practically? I have my doubts...

Click to expand...

That is not what it said. Read it again.

Drugs can be administered to help the mother - but must NOT be as an intent to kill the child.
It must always be unintended....as an unknown or accidental side affect.

MikeK said:

Right. Killing a child? Always wrong. Intending to prevent a child affter (or before or durring) coitus in a conjugal act? Always wrong. Intending to prevent a child as a result of a violent attack? Permitted.

Click to expand...

Um, to my knowledge - which abortificants are deliberately used in this case - to prevent a child - is to prevent the conception from taking hold - so to speak - therefore knowing the outcome - is abortion by intent.

To prevent life is still preventing life.

BUT if mother is taking a drug to heal her body from an attack - and it is not known to abort the baby - it is subjective to being unintended.

Tho to take one due to violence to prevent [that word again] a child - it is indeed an abortificant BECAUSE its after the act - with the intent to prevent. And still - even before the act.

As i posted before - the ecf's give a stern warning about contraception in these cases - to prevent a child is still murder...to prevent conception at any time is still murder even of the child's hope to be conceived.

Let's not let secular jargon be confusing. It pulls us into all sorts of issues later as ppl see more grey areas than stark black and white and this is how ppl get into spiritual trouble in murky waters.

Unlike abortion, the prohibition against artificial birth control has never be widely accepted by the Bishops of the Church over all. There small majority accepted Humanae Vitae while a minority said it was not infallible and the Bishops should stay out of the bedrooms of married couples.

In fact, the commission Pope Paul VI set up to study ABC, found that there were moral justifications for married couples to use it. Under advice from his handlers, the Pope rejected the commission's report, for they feared that it would undermine the authority of the papacy.

Jim

JimR-OCDS said:

Unlike abortion, the prohibition against artificial birth control has never be widely accepted by the Bishops of the Church over all. There small majority accepted Humanae Vitae while a minority said it was not infallible and the Bishops should stay out of the bedrooms of married couples.

In fact, the commission Pope Paul VI set up to study ABC, found that there were moral justifications for married couples to use it. Under advice from his handlers, the Pope rejected the commission's report, for they feared that it would undermine the authority of the papacy.

Jim

Click to expand...

Birth Control



In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.

Birth Control

Whoa doggy. I dont know where you got that idea Jim, but if a wayward Bishops proposes something different - always read the sources of the Pope.

AND if that isnt enough - time you read the earlier renderings of the fathers.



Apostolic Tradition


The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).

The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930

The Magisterium


The Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful.

In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, "[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (HV 14).

This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399).

The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).

MikeK said:

No, re-read the USCCB's statement. Conception either happens or does not happen. It is an action, it doesn't take hold or fail to take hold. It happens or it does not happen. The USCCB's position is very clear. Preventing conception (contraception) in these cases is morally acceptable. Taking actions after conception to cause an abortion is not ever okay.



I don't know of any modern theologians who still hold to the position that if one is not open to life, like if one spouse refuses the marriage debt, that that spouse is guilty for as many murders as there would have been children concieved had they remained open to sexual activity. Refusing sex in marriage is still a grave sin in certain circumstances, but I don't know of anyone who'd call it murder today.

It would make for an interesting holily though. "Hey wives, remember when you "had a headache" and watched American Idol instead of getting down to it per your husband's suggestion? Well, now you're a murderer."

Click to expand...

As i posted to Jim, i leave to you too.

USBBC isnt the catechism, and it is not the Pope's teaching, obviously.

Not calling it murder today, tomorrow or yesterday doesnt mean it is not murder because of modern wayward Bishops opinions, and as we can clearly see the Pope is cleaning up the trash while he can.

If USBBC differs in any portion or way from the clear and concise teachings that retain authority in the Church - then i suggest you look first to the actual reality of the teachings of the magesterium before accepting something contrary.

thereselittleflower said:

isshinwhat . . this does not say that fornication is an intrinsically evil act.

It says it is a moral evil.


Something can be a moral evil if any one of the three fonts of morality are vioatled. . .

Again . . . Intent . . . . Object . . . Circumstance.


ONLY ONE HAS BE BE ENGAGED FOR THERE TO BE A MORALLY EVIL ACT

Again . . . fornication s a choice to use somthing intrinsically good in an evil way . . .that does not change its nature . . . the object, sex, does not suddenly become intrinsically evil.

THE INTENT IS EVIL.


Such a choice vioates the morality of the font of intent.


Please, understand what intrisically means and does not mean.


You are misusing and misunderstanding this very important and controlling word.

Click to expand...

TLF, read the entire section and the one before it. I believe 1756 makes it clear that fornication is intrinsically evil, just as it makes it clear that the act of adultery, in and of itself (intrinsically) is evil.

thereselittleflower said:

No isshinwhat


Sex is an intrinsically good object.


Contraception is an intrinsically evil object.


Contraception is not sex.

They are two different objects morally speaking.

Click to expand...

I was incorrect when I stated that, but doing so helped me see what I believe may be your mistake, as well. The moral object with respect to fornication or adultery is is not sex, just as the moral object is not unqualified contraception.

Fornication is intrinsically evil because performance of the act itself, "entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil." The Compendium says, "There are some acts which, in and of themselves, are always illicit by reason of their object (for example, blasphemy, homicide, adultery). Choosing such acts entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil which can never be justified by appealing to the good effects which could possibly result from them." It is precisely that inherent moral disorder of the will that makes Fornication (or Adultery) intrinsically evil.

For example: One may have a good intention (I love him and want to show him that I adore him) and understandable circumstances (we dated for a year and I have little religious education), yet despite the good intentions and possibly slightly mitigating circumstances, the act itself is a intrinsically evil because it's mere performance entails a, "disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil."

The mistake I believe you are making is substituting contraception for sex in the same logical construct that I made, and that is incorrect. When we speak of sex, it is easier because we have different theological terms to differentiate, with contraception we do not. In the case of sex we do not have to say, "sex outside of marriage while married - or with a married person to whom you are not married, is intrinsically evil," we can say, "adultery is intrinsically evil." We are, therefore, much less likely to confuse the issue. When speaking about contraception, though, we have no other choice but to say, "Contraception withing marriage or voluntary, unitive intercourse is intrinsically evil," while, "contraception (non-abortive and/or non-contragestive) as a result of rape is not intrinsically evil."

Thank everyone for the discussion, it has made me dig much deeper into my faith than I would have without it.

I don't understand.. why is there debate on this? the Church teaching is very clear. No contraception. No abortion. Those things are intrinsically evil.

MoNiCa4316 said:

I don't understand.. why is there debate on this? the Church teaching is very clear. No contraception. No abortion. Those things are intrinsically evil.

Click to expand...

Hence the title... The USCCB seems to be saying that contraception within marriage is intrinsically evil, abortion is intrinsically evil, but contraception which is in no way contragestive or abortifacient can licitly be used in cases of rape. See my post #134 for my understanding of the logic behind their claim. I'm asking two priests that I know, one FSSP and the other who holds a STD from the Angelicum to check the logic behind the USCCB's statement.

i dont go by popular belief

i go by what the Church teaches on morals

that is why i am a leader, not a follower

isshinwhat said:

Hence the title... The USCCB seems to be saying that contraception within marriage is intrinsically evil, abortion is intrinsically evil, but contraception which is in no way contragestive or abortifacient can licitly be used in cases of rape. See my post #134 for my understanding of the logic behind their claim. I'm asking two priests that I know, one FSSP and the other who holds a STD from the Angelicum to check the logic behind the USCCB's statement.

Click to expand...

can you let us know what they say? I'm interested...

last year I had to check with my priest about a lot of these sorts of topics because I was being told things that weren't the Church teaching. He's an FSSP priest as well, - and he really clarified a lot of things for me.

MoNiCa4316 said:

can you let us know what they say? I'm interested...

last year I had to check with my priest about a lot of these sorts of topics because I was being told things that weren't the Church teaching. He's an FSSP priest as well, - and he really clarified a lot of things for me.

Click to expand...

I will definitely let everyone know what they say.

i can tell you this

in no way does the Church now or ever support abortifacients or contraceptives post-rape

the Church does not believe in murdering innocent children for the crimes of third parties